Brooke

Arguably, you're made up of some of the finest legal minds in our nation. You have an understanding of the Constitution and previous cases that is amazing. Oh, and you get the last word on everything. We all more or less accept this.

However, can go a little easier on the dicta? Or, even worse, the inane ramblings? I'll concede that dicta is sometimes useful because it gives everyone a hint on how you might rule on an issue with slightly different facts (although, given that your make up changes pretty frequently, if the case matching those facts came before you a year or so later, you might rule the other way), but the inane ramblings? You know, where you go off on a tangent that is only slightly related to the case at hand and really gives no helpful information? That's really annoying. I'm fairly sure that you guys aren't being paid by the word for opinions and I know I'm not being paid by the word to read them (although I guess if I were actually working, I might work that in under billable hours...), so is there really any point in writing a 50 page opinion that goes into everything the Framers said about an issue when you're just going to say "Oh, but we reject the view that this matters?" Seriously, what does that accomplish?